RC Priest writes:
Creationism is a theistic model, but since evolution purports to explain origins and development naturally (as opposed to supernaturally) is this not the opposite of a theistic model?
If by "the opposite of a theistic model" you mean a model that explicitly states the non-existence of a deity, then you are wrong to classify science as such, because science makes no such statements. Science is indifferent with regard to God's existence. And this is where we can immediately see why your comparison between creationism and science fails, because creationism is
not indifferent.
On the contrary, creationism takes as its very fundament the premise that God exists. Being creationism, it's obvious that it should do so, but it's not at all obvious why it should be compared with science, let alone be on a par with it, when there is no common ground.
Richard Dawkins in writings that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist,” is making a philosophical statement.
So? You should properly make the distinction between statements
of science and statements
about science. Richard Dawkins is not solely a scientist, he is also a moral human being, but he knows how to separate the two stances. Again, we see a difference between creationism and science: creationism does not make a clear distinction between moral statements and scientific ones. In fact, creationism's antagonism against science is driven by the fear - an unjustified and unreasonable fear - that its own specific morals are somehow endangered by the pursuit of science, motivating it to try and engage science on its own terrain. Such attempts can only fail, because the motivation is the antithesis of how science proceeds.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 03-Oct-2005 01:56 PM
We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins